Anjana Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3516 of 2018

1. Anjana Singh W/o W/o Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Multipurpose, Rehabilitation, Assistant, R/o Vivekanand Colony, Torwa Naka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Bhuneshwari Tiwari W/o W/o Shri Prashant Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 53 Years Occupation Multipurpose, Rehabilitation, Assistant, R/o Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Director, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. District Rehabilitation Officer, Bilaspur, Tilak Nagar School, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Joint Director, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Composite Building, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State :

Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 04/05/2018 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working on the post of Multipurpose Rehabilitation Technician, Bilaspur and they are entitled for grant of benefit of revised pay scale as per circulars issued by the State Government filed as Annexure P/4, Annexure P/5 & Annexure P/6, but the same is not being given to them against which they have

made representation before the respondent authorities, which has not been considered and decided till date and therefore direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the representation expeditiously. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of benefit of revised pay scale. (3) Though there is opposition to the relief sought for by the petitioner, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in identical situation and similarly situated employee, earlier, this Court had disposed off the matter with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider representation of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am also inclined to pass similar order to maintain parity.

(4) The petitioners are directed to make fresh representation to respondent No.1 for redressal of their grievance within a period of four weeks from today supported by circulars Annexure P/4, Annexure P/5 & Annexure P/6. If such representation is filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1, in that event, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners expeditiously within a further period of ten weeks from the date of filing of representation.

(5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti